| 1 |
On 3 April 2010 16:12, Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Samstag, den 03.04.2010, 16:40 +0300 schrieb Dror Levin: |
| 3 |
>> There is currently a wiki for gentoo at gentoo-wiki.com, which is |
| 4 |
>> running MediaWiki, so it would be easiest to transfer the content if |
| 5 |
>> we were to run the same software. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This should happen (if at all) on a per article basis imho. Having the |
| 8 |
> option to do so (if we want to) is a plus we should consider, though. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This also raises the question of license. Our current documentation |
| 11 |
mostly uses the CC-BY-SA license, while the unoffical wiki adds a |
| 12 |
non-commercial restriction. By choosing one license over the other |
| 13 |
we will make copy-pasting content from the source that has the other |
| 14 |
license, as far as I can see, illegal. I would say that interchange |
| 15 |
possibilities with our existing official documentation has priority. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Mediawiki sounds like what we want probably, mainly because it seems to |
| 18 |
> be the most popular one. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I don't think that in itself is a very good argument. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Besides that: |
| 23 |
> - Ubuntu and Debian are using MoinMoin |
| 24 |
> - Fedora and OpenSUSE use Mediawiki |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I think we should consider the pros and cons of both these solutions. |
| 27 |
Does anyone have any links to the considerations that led these |
| 28 |
distros to make the choice they did? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> In addition I'd like to establish a Wiki team with both developers and |
| 31 |
> experienced users who are able to review Wikipages (specifically every |
| 32 |
> revision of a page) and tag those pages as reviewed. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I agree this is a good idea. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Cheers, |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Ben de Groot |
| 39 |
Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer |
Archives